M/S. BANARSI MARBLE STONE PRIVATE LIMITED,UDAIPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Sandeep Gosain

9. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, from the notice under section 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act dt. 31/08/2015 it is clear that the AO had not specified the charge for which the penalty was initiated under section 271

VAMITA SINGH,JAIPUR vs. ITO, , BALOTRA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am Vk;Dj Vihy La-@Ita No. 87/Jodh/2019 Fu/Kzkj.K O"Kz@Assessment Year :2011-12 Vamita Singh, Cuke Ito, Vs. C/O-Ashok Kumar Bansal, C.A., Ward-7(3) 2Nd Vijay Shanti Plaza, Near Jaipur. Railway Crossing, Balotra-344022. Lfkk;H Ys[Kk La-@Thvkbzvkj La-@Pan/Gir No.: Atzps 9372 B Vihykfkhz@Appellant Izr;Fkhz@Respondent Fu/Kzkfjrh Dh Vksj Ls@ Assessee By: Shri Ashok Kumar Bansal (Ca) Jktlo Dh Vksj Ls@ Revenue By : Smt. Monisha Choudhary(Addl.Cit) Lquokbz Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Hearing : 22/12/2020 Mn?Kks"K.Kk Dh Rkjh[K@ Date Of Pronouncement : 24/02/2021 Vkns'K@ Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-3, Jaipur Dated 20/11/2018 For The A.Y. 2011-12. 2. The Hearing Of The Appeal Was Concluded Through Video Conference In View Of The Prevailing Situation Of Covid-19 Pandemic.

penalty U/s 271(1)(b) of the Act, therefore, we thought it fit to dispose off all the grounds by this consolidated order. 9. The ld AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has reiterated the same arguments as were raised before the ld. CIT(A) and also relied upon the written submissions submitted before him which are reproduced below

MANISH SHARMA,KOTA vs. JCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Date Of Hearing.

271(1)(c). Accordingly, the impugned penalty order is barred by limitation and deserves to be quashed.” 4. On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative supported the orders of the revenue authorities. Ground No. 1 relates to ld. CIT (A) has erred in not quashing the penalty order passed under section 271E

SHRI KHERAJ RAM ,BARMER vs. DC CEN CIR01, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

section 153A. Therefore, the reliance on these decisions by the appellant is found to be misplaced. I.T.A. Nos. 111 to 114/Jodh/2023 6 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2014-15 The appellant explained that because of reasonable cause i.e. medical problem with the Authorized Representative, compliance could not be made. However, no such evidence was furnished before the AO during assessment

SHRI KHERAJ RAM ,BARMER vs. DC CEN CIR01, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

section 153A. Therefore, the reliance on these decisions by the appellant is found to be misplaced. I.T.A. Nos. 111 to 114/Jodh/2023 6 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2014-15 The appellant explained that because of reasonable cause i.e. medical problem with the Authorized Representative, compliance could not be made. However, no such evidence was furnished before the AO during assessment

SHRI KHERAJ RAM ,BARMER vs. DC CEN CIR01, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

section 153A. Therefore, the reliance on these decisions by the appellant is found to be misplaced. I.T.A. Nos. 111 to 114/Jodh/2023 6 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2014-15 The appellant explained that because of reasonable cause i.e. medical problem with the Authorized Representative, compliance could not be made. However, no such evidence was furnished before the AO during assessment

SHRI KHERAJ RAM ,BARMER vs. DC CEN CIR01, JODHPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

section 153A. Therefore, the reliance on these decisions by the appellant is found to be misplaced. I.T.A. Nos. 111 to 114/Jodh/2023 6 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2014-15 The appellant explained that because of reasonable cause i.e. medical problem with the Authorized Representative, compliance could not be made. However, no such evidence was furnished before the AO during assessment

VIKRAM ANJANA,PRATAPGARH vs. ACIT, CIRCLE, CHITTORGARH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K. Sainishri Vikram Anjana, Vs The Acit, Vill - Kesunda, Circle-Chittorgarh Tehsil Chhotisadri, Pratapgarh (Raj.) 312604

9. In his rival submissions, the Ld. Sr. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. 10. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on record. In the present case it is an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer while imposing the penalty had not specifically mentioned that the assessee had concealed

SHRINATH PRODUCTS,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-2, RAJSAMAND

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotem/S Shrinath Products Vs. Ito. Ward 1(1), A.M.Mehta & Co, Udaipur, 6-B, Bapu Bazar, Rajasthan. Udaipur.-313001, Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Aaqfs9840Q Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Nidhi Nair. Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)(Cit(A)-1,Udaipur Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax (Act), 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal.

section 144 of the Act and passed the order u/s 144 r.w. 147 of the Act. The Ld.DR supported the order of the CIT(A). 6. We heard the Ld. DR submissions and perused the material available on record. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the levy of penalty u/s 271

SMT. BHAWANA NAGORI,BHILWARA. vs. ITO, WARD-5, BHILWARA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: The Time Of Hearing. 5. The Petitioner Prays For Justice & Relief.

u/s 274 of the Act which does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealing particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Id CIT (A) erred in sustaining penalty of Rs. 2,10,000/- under the provision of section

DEEPAK KUMAR RAJORIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), BIKANER

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Assessing Authority Tax Was Paid & Adjust From Tds The Appellant Was Aware Of The Fact That There Is Any Form By Filing Which The Penalty May Be Dropped So The Penalty Was Never Leviable In This Case Therefore The Penalty U/S 270A May Please Be Cancelled. 3. The Appellant Prays For Justice & Relief. 4. The Appellant May Please Be Permitted To Raise Any Addition Or Alternative Ground At Or Before The Hearing.”

section 271(1)(C) of the IT Act. In this relevant case the assessee had voluntarily surrendered his claim of deduction so in this case no penalty should be imposed because there was no addition on record and the voluntarily surrender never attracts penalty provision as held in various judgments penalty is unjustified in this case wherein assessee has surrender

CHAMPA LAL MEHTA ,SANCHORE vs. ITO WARD-2, JALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

9%. We are of the opinion, that where the addition is sustained\non the estimated basis no penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied.\nThe disallowance of purchases on adhoc/estimated basis does not\ntantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars ofincome under the\nprovisions ofSection 271(1) (c) ofthe Act. The A.O. has not doubted the\nsales

SHRI AMAR SINGH JAIN ,BHILWARA vs. ITO, WARD-1, BHILWARA

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

271(l)(c) of the Act carry different meanings. Therefore, it is imperative for the Assessing Officer to strike - off the irrelevant limb so as to make the assessee aware as to what is the charge made against him so that he can respond accordingly. The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory

SHRI THAKUR CHAPLOT,RAJSAMAND vs. ACIT CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri A. T. Varkeyshri Thakur Chaplot Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Pan: Aappc9323H Income-Tax, Circle-2, C/O Rajendra Jain, Advocate, Udaipur, Rajasthan, Kar 106, Akshay Deep Complex, Bhawan, Sub-City 5Th B Road,Sardrpura, Centre,Saveena,Udaipur Jodhpur (Raj)-313001. (Appellant) (Respondent)

9. In the case of CIT Vs. Kaushalya (supra), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that section 274 or any other provision in the Act or the Rules, does not either mandate the giving of notice or its issuance in a particular form. Penalty proceedings are quasi- criminal in nature. Section 274 contains the principle of natural justice

SHRI SHIV SINGH CHOUHAN,RAJSAMAND vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri A. T. Varkeyshri Shiv Singh Chouhan Vs Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Rajendra Jain, Advocate, Income-Tax, Circle-2, 106, Akshay Deep Complex, Udaipur, Rajasthan 5Th B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Pan: Cifps9604M) (Appellant) (Respondent)

9. In the case of CIT Vs. Kaushalya (supra), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that section 274 or any other provision in the Act or the Rules, does not either mandate the giving of notice or its issuance in a particular form. Penalty proceedings are quasi- criminal in nature. Section 274 contains the principle of natural justice

SHRI SARAFRAJ AHMED ,UDAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), UDAIPUR

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri A. T. Varkeyshri Sarfaraj Ahmed Vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward- Pan: Afypa8123R 1(4), Udaipur, Rajasthan- C/O Shrawan Kumar Gupta, 313001. Advocate, 416, Surya Chamber Radio Market, Nehru Bazar, Jaipur. (Appellant) (Respondent)

9. In the case of CIT Vs. Kaushalya (supra), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that section 274 or any other provision in the Act or the Rules, does not either mandate the giving of notice or its issuance in a particular form. Penalty proceedings are quasi- criminal in nature. Section 274 contains the principle of natural justice

UMMAID MAL SINGHVI,JODHPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR

Accordingly, legal ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2008-09 Shri. Ummaid Mal Singhvi, Acit, C/O Rajendra Jain Advocate, Vs Central Circle-2, 106 Akshay Deep Complex, 5Th Jodhpur B Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur Pan: Abpps7429D Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Jain, Advocate Revenue By Ms. Nidhi Nair, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 07.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07.08.2023 Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Udaipur Dated 30Th September, 2019 For Assessment Year 2008-09 Emanating From The Penalty Order Under Section 271Aaa Of The Income Tax Act Passed By Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jodhpur. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : Ummaid Mal Singhvi

u/s 271AAA can be imposed on the undisclosed income and the term undisclosed income for the purpose of section 271AAA is defined in explanation to section 271AAA. As per the provision and the explanation no penalty can imposed on the addition on the basis of deeming provisions of section 50C. 3 Ummaid Mal Singhvi 6] Without prejudice to above

INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS, UDAIPUR vs. DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FOREST (SOUTH), UDAIPUR

In the result, both the above appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the said demand by stating that the VFPMCs are not contractors under Section 194C, as they are formed under the Rajasthan Forest Act, 1953, and function as self-help groups for forest conservation and development. The payments made to VFPMCs are not contract payments but are reimbursements for work done under the joint forest management policy of the State Government.

section 194C thus do not apply. We get support of this view from the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in ITA No.6844/Del./2019 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) in the case of M/s. Santur Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., vs. ACIT, Range 77 New Delhi where in the coordinate bench has also considered these aspect of the matter. The relevant part